Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Mad Men: The Final Season, Part 1 (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Minority Report (Blu-ray)
$7.88
Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music (Blu-ray)
$17.99
Chucky: The Complete Collection (Blu-ray)
$31.99
Ghostbusters 1 & 2 (Blu-ray)
$15.95
Attack on Titan Part 2 (Blu-ray)
$24.98
Game of Thrones: Complete Seasons 1-2 (Blu-ray)
$72.99
Masterpiece: Downton Abbey Seasons 1 - 4 (Blu-ray)
$44.99
Dragon Ball Z: Season 7 (Blu-ray)
$17.99
The Simpsons: The Seventeenth Season (Blu-ray)
$29.96
Captain America: The First Avenger (Blu-ray)
$19.99
The Dick Van Dyke Show: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$57.99
Oblivion (Blu-ray)
$9.99
The Nutty Professor: 50th Anniversary (Blu-ray)
$28.99
Wrong Turn Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$12.98
Dragon Ball Z: Season 6 (Blu-ray)
$17.99
COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2013, 06:47 PM   #41
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vargo View Post
I downloaded one of their samples and it was clearly encoded using x264.
Yeah they say there is no need to update with new hardware, that most current hardware will work. Will see how they do against HEVC/H.265 in a head to head
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:13 PM   #42
vargo vargo is offline
Senior Member
 
May 2011
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
Yeah they say there is no need to update with new hardware, that most current hardware will work. Will see how they do against HEVC/H.265 in a head to head
I think you missed the point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:23 PM   #43
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vargo View Post
I think you missed the point.
What point? I think you did? Yeah there h.264 files that claim smaller file size like the new h.265. Did you download both sample files to compare? How did the Beamr h.264 files playback on your computer setup?
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”

Last edited by img eL; 02-13-2013 at 05:22 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:03 PM   #44
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
Looking forward to seeing, or at least hearing about anecdotal viewer responses at some upcoming trade shows in regards to a real world demo of their codec with 4K source on 4K tvs, rather than just a promotional video and press reports.

It would seem to me that the upcoming NAB in April would be a perfect venue for them to attempt to really prove that 75% claim for TV viewing.
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:06 PM   #45
vargo vargo is offline
Senior Member
 
May 2011
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
Looking forward to seeing, or at least hearing about anecdotal viewer responses at some upcoming trade shows in regards to a real world demo of their codec with 4K source on 4K tvs, rather than just a promotional video and press reports.
"Their" codec is x264.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 01:10 AM   #46
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vargo View Post
"Their" codec is x264.
Why does it matter if its h.264 versus h.265?
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 02:42 AM   #47
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vargo View Post
"Their" codec is x264.
I know.
Just quicker to type that, rather than *their patent-pending video recompression technology for H.264*.

Looking forward to a presentation at NAB.
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973

Last edited by Penton-Man; 02-14-2013 at 02:52 AM. Reason: spacing
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 08:30 AM   #48
vargo vargo is offline
Senior Member
 
May 2011
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
Why does it matter if its h.264 versus h.265?
Im not saying anything about H.264 vs H.265.

Im saying their 'magic compression technology' is simply the popular open source encoding library x264. They tried to hide it but it is very obvious to anyone who knows what to look for.

Im not sure how simpler I can put it for you. It would be like me advertising my amazing new Vargoshop photo editing suite and when you examine the code it is just Photoshop with the name changed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 08:49 AM   #49
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vargo View Post
Im not saying anything about H.264 vs H.265.

Im saying their 'magic compression technology' is simply the popular open source encoding library x264. They tried to hide it but it is very obvious to anyone who knows what to look for.

Im not sure how simpler I can put it for you. It would be like me advertising my amazing new Vargoshop photo editing suite and when you examine the code it is just Photoshop with the name changed.
Yes Beamr mentions that, it's there optimized version of H.264. Not all h.264 is the same
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 04:19 AM   #50
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
Yes Beamr mentions...
lol, looks like every time I check into read this thread now, I’m thinking of the car…http://www.bmw.com/com/en/
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 07:03 AM   #51
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

HEVC demo http://www.diginfo.tv/v/13-0015-r-en.php
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 04:57 PM   #52
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
For me, HEVC can’t come soon enough for video conferencing . Anyway, observe the stills of the waterfalls by EBU for comparing HEVC codec at 10 Mbps to uncompressed source…
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....ls#post7187037
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 02:15 AM   #53
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post
For me, HEVC can’t come soon enough for video conferencing
agree
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 04:57 AM   #54
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

From Feb.22…
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....rs#post7186967

Four days later…
Company Release -
http://ir.rovicorp.com/file.aspx?IID...6&FID=16131783
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 06:14 PM   #55
Penton-Man Penton-Man is offline
Retired Hollywood Insider
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Apr 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
agree
It certainly beats traveling and going through security these days.
To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Click on this to Learn how to HELP by simply texting
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=11973
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 03:43 PM   #56
Taikero Taikero is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Jan 2013
U.S.A.
525
1
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
Yes Beamr mentions that, it's there optimized version of H.264. Not all h.264 is the same
The problem is that "their" so-called "optimized version" of H.264 is NOT THEIRS.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Ripping off an open source (and free) library that encodes H.264 video and calling it yours is just unethical and sleazy. Even worse that they're going to try to patent it and make money from it. Disgusting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 03:50 PM   #57
Taikero Taikero is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Jan 2013
U.S.A.
525
1
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
4k has FOUR times (2x horizontal, and 2x vertical pixels) the resolution as 1080, not double. So even if h.265 only needs half the bit rate as h.264 (and I've heard its more like 30% than 50) the disc needs to be twice the size, given the same length of content.
Part of quote bolded by me for emphasis. The bolded statement is not true. Why is this?

Because of P and B frames.

I frames are a current snapshot of what a given scene looks like.

After any I frame, you will have one or more P frames.

Each P frame uses data from previous frames (either I, P, or B frames) to construct the current image.

Between P and I frames, you may also have B frames.

Each B frame uses data from previous and future frames to attain high levels of compression.


Because of P and B frames, 4x the resolution does not linearly equate to 4x the bitrate required, simply because when you build on frames that already exist, that's data you get "for free" (at the expense of decoding time/power requirements).
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:39 PM   #58
img eL img eL is offline
Senior Member
 
img eL's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Michigan
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taikero View Post
The problem is that "their" so-called "optimized version" of H.264 is NOT THEIRS.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Ripping off an open source (and free) library that encodes H.264 video and calling it yours is just unethical and sleazy. Even worse that they're going to try to patent it and make money from it. Disgusting.
That's not the point, I have no idea what they do as a business model. The point is that they claim they can reduce current h.264 file sizes by %70! We'll see if they can do that.
"I'd unravel every riddle, For every Individual, In trouble or in pain.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 03:07 PM   #59
lobosrul lobosrul is offline
Active Member
 
Aug 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taikero View Post
Part of quote bolded by me for emphasis. The bolded statement is not true. Why is this?

Because of P and B frames.

I frames are a current snapshot of what a given scene looks like.

After any I frame, you will have one or more P frames.

Each P frame uses data from previous frames (either I, P, or B frames) to construct the current image.

Between P and I frames, you may also have B frames.

Each B frame uses data from previous and future frames to attain high levels of compression.


Because of P and B frames, 4x the resolution does not linearly equate to 4x the bitrate required, simply because when you build on frames that already exist, that's data you get "for free" (at the expense of decoding time/power requirements).
You are correct that an exact linear increase is probably inaccurate. But, there are still differences between each frame (unless its a static image), and an image that has 4x as many pixels, will, on average I think, have 4x as much difference between frames.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 05:14 PM   #60
Taikero Taikero is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Jan 2013
U.S.A.
525
1
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL View Post
That's not the point, I have no idea what they do as a business model. The point is that they claim they can reduce current h.264 file sizes by %70! We'll see if they can do that.
They probably can't because devices are locked into certain profiles. Profiles limit the features of the H.264 spec you can take advantage of due to processing limitations during decoding.

Because of this, unless they found some amazing way to tweak optimizations during profiling, their business model is simply "provide crappier H.264 video than our competitors".


Quote:
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
You are correct that an exact linear increase is probably inaccurate. But, there are still differences between each frame (unless its a static image), and an image that has 4x as many pixels, will, on average I think, have 4x as much difference between frames.
This is not true either. Due to the way differences are calculated and colors are approximated, more pixels means more opportunity to save data by approximating colors in a larger area of pixels that has changed. In other words, more pixels means less variation between each pixel as you advance frames (just like there's more change per pixel in a 640x480 video vs. a 1920x1080 video). This is even more true with B frames that borrow from previous and future frames.

I know it sounds crazy, but 4x more pixels might only have 2-3x the difference due to the lossy algorithms used to save video data, especially when dealing with scenes that have slow movement (fast movement scenes will of course see the most rapid change and be able to compress less, but that is always the case).

Last edited by Taikero; 03-01-2013 at 05:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:59 PM.